[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 200 (Wednesday, December 19, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7918-S7921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2018
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, the 2018 farm bill was a true bipartisan
victory, and I am very proud of the historic vote Senator Roberts and I
were able to achieve on this bill. It serves as an example of how
Congress, on a bipartisan basis, can produce important legislation
through debate and compromise. On the Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry Committee, we have a long history of working together to
ensure a strong safety net for farmers and for families. This bill
continues that long-standing, bipartisan tradition. I know that the
chairman did not get everything he wanted in this bill, and neither did
I. I would have preferred to make more progress on reforming farm
payments, a cause championed by my friend, Senator Grassley, and on
improving the adequacy of benefits in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, known as SNAP, and our other food assistance
programs, but, overall, this is a good bill that protects and advances
many critical food and farm policies that deserves the strong
bipartisan support it received.
The nutrition title of this bill is no exception. We know that SNAP
is largely working, and spending has been declining as more people get
back to work and get off SNAP the right way. We also know that it is
our job to make sure the program is working as intended and that we
address any integrity issues that arise. That is why we included
important improvements to SNAP program operations, oversight, and
employment and training in this bill. In this conference report, we
have protected SNAP, made modest, but important improvements, and
excluded the very harmful House provisions that would have cut SNAP by
more than $20 billion over 10 years, taken food assistance away from at
least 2 million people, and imposed new, unworkable mandates on States.
I wish we also could have made more progress in expanding SNAP
eligibility, benefits, and access in ways that would address food
insecurity and help low-income Americans who are struggling to make
ends meet. That said, we were able to include an important benefit
improvement that will provide additional SNAP benefit to certain
homeless households that, despite lacking a permanent nighttime
address, may still incur expenses for shelter for temporary
accommodations or to stay with friends or family. The program's $143
homeless shelter deduction will now be available in all States,
including in my home State of Michigan, and will keep pace with
inflation each year. If a
[[Page S7919]]
household could get more SNAP benefits by claiming the regular shelter
deduction, it must continue to be able to do so, but for the many
households that have had difficulty proving the amount of their shelter
expenses, this change will enhance their SNAP benefits and reduce
paperwork for both the household and for State agencies. Specifically,
the conference report allows, for example, when a homeless household
incurs a cost for shelter, but does not have paperwork available to
prove the expense, an eligibility worker to provide the standard
homeless shelter deduction based on her or his assessment of the
households' claims about the expense. The worker can examine the
totality of the household's circumstances and provide an appropriate
deduction based on the information that is available.
Another improvement we include in this conference agreement is a
requirement that USDA reassess the adequacy of SNAP's Thrifty Food
Plan, TFP, by 2022 and every 5 years subsequently. The TFP is the
foundation for SNAP benefit levels and is meant to reflect the actual
food costs that households face in obtaining a nutritionally adequate
diet. In recent years, mounting research evidence has found that the
TFP is out of step with actual food purchasing practices and
nutritional recommendations and that, for the vast majority of
households, SNAP benefits are inadequate when considered in tandem with
income that the household is assumed to have available for food. In
part, the low SNAP benefits are a result of USDA in the past requiring
that revisions not increase the cost of the TFP. Over many years, the
factors behind food costs have evolved, i.e., purchasing and
consumption patterns, dietary guidelines, women's work patterns, and
transportation costs. Our intention for the future is that USDA not be
compelled to achieve a cost-neutral revision to the TFP, but that it
bring to bear the best scientific evidence about the appropriate cost
of a ``thrifty,'' but nutritionally adequate food basket. We recognize
that this may mean that SNAP benefits need to be adjusted as a result
of the reassessment.
We also recognize that food insecurity is an ongoing issue amongst
military families. While the conference report did not include a
critical change I support related to the treatment of the Base
Allowance for Housing in SNAP, I want to encourage USDA to look for
ways to address military hunger. Specifically, I ask that USDA
designate an office or liaison within the Office of the Secretary of
Agriculture to coordinate with Department of Defense to gather data
about currently serving military families experiencing food insecurity.
I would ask USDA to gather key information such as estimates of SNAP
participation by currently serving military families; estimates of
currently serving military families experiencing food insecurity, but
not able to qualify for SNAP benefits because the inclusion of their
Basic Allowance for Housing allowance as counted income; estimates of
currently serving military households with low household incomes--below
200 percent of federal poverty line; below 185 percent; below 130
percent; and estimates of participation in WIC by military households
in comparison to SNAP.
Food consumption and buying behaviors are not the only changes
affecting SNAP. Technology, both in administration and in the retail
landscape, also continue to evolve. The conference report makes several
important changes to help USDA to modernize to address consumer
preferences and to help States to continue to strengthen their
stewardship of SNAP.
First, we expand a pilot from the last farm bill, known as the
National Accuracy Clearinghouse, NAC, to be a nationwide program within
a few years. The NAC gives States tools to ensure that individuals do
not simultaneously receive SNAP benefits in two or more States by
conducting cross-State matches of SNAP applicants and participating
households and setting up a process for States to resolve instances of
apparent dual participation. An evaluation of the NAC pilot found that,
although duplicate participation is small--less than 0.02 percent of
SNAP participants--it is feasible for States to conduct a match to
identify and prevent duplicate participation.
We know that duplicate participation, when it does occur, is rarely
intentional fraud, but rather is a result of a household or household
member simply moving from one State to another and not successfully
disenrolling in their previous home State. This could be caused by
households not being able to get through to a call center to report the
move or a State not taking the proper subsequent action to close the
case or remove the household member. The NAC helps States to address
this issue more effectively using technology, saving money within SNAP
in the process. As with any error, without evidence of a client's
intent to defraud the program, States should assume that dual
enrollment discovered through the NAC is unintentional.
Because duplicate participation is so rare and a household's need for
food assistance may be urgent, the conference committee expects that
USDA's Food and Nutrition Service, FNS, and States will establish
procedures for the NAC that will not interfere with current application
and enrollment procedures, particularly the speedy processing of
applications. Some States are able to process matches in ``real time''
or provide same-day or other fast service to SNAP applicants. Given
that only a tiny fraction of applications are expected to result in a
positive match via the NAC, we expect that States will often run the
match after approving SNAP.
In developing the NAC provision, the members were sensitive to recent
problems with data security breaches and the risk that any large data
set may be a target for hacking, identity theft, or other ``big data''
goals that are not associated with the administration of SNAP. The
Conference Committee intended that the NAC have state-of-the art
privacy and security protections and that the information shared across
States as part of the NAC be used only for the purpose of identifying
and preventing dual participation in SNAP. We expect FNS to exercise
strong oversight of any contractors that are engaged in the operation
of the NAC to ensure that contractor is not using information about
SNAP participants for any other purposes.
Finally, as part of the NAC, we expect that FNS will be developing
procedures for standardizing, streamlining, and in some cases
automating cross-State communications. We urge FNS to ensure that these
processes provide SNAP recipients with services that take into account
the difficulty they may have in navigating cross-State communications.
For example, we expect FNS's policies to include procedures to help
households appeal and resolve decisions across State boundaries. If a
noncustodial parent applies for benefits on behalf of a child who lives
with the other parent, it may be difficult for the custodial parent to
know how to navigate an eligibility decision made in another State
where the individual does not reside.
Similarly, when overpayments occur because of duplicate
participation, we expect the cross-State claims process to take into
account difficulties households may have had in closing their case in
their prior State of residence. For example, if a State was delinquent
in closing the case after the household reported the change, or the
household could not get through on the telephone to report the change
because of a major problem in call center operations, this should be
considered an agency error, and households should be given
consideration in the claims establishment and collection process. If
the household did not use the benefits in the State in which they
previously resided because they were receiving SNAP where they live now
and simply could not close their old case because of a problem with the
States' reporting procedures we assume they will not be held
responsible for repaying an overpayment.
Another provision of the bill offers States an opportunity to
collaborate with FNS to establish longitudinal data sets about SNAP
participation. The goal of this provision is in some ways the opposite
of the NAC. Where the NAC aims to share very specific identifying
information about SNAP applicants and participants to prevent dual
participation, the conference agreement specifically prohibits the
longitudinal database from collecting or sharing any personal
identifying information. Instead, the information in these data sets
will be used only for research purposes to study the characteristics of
SNAP participants over time
[[Page S7920]]
and improve SNAP program operations. Because most data that is
available about SNAP participants looks just at 1 particular month,
these data sets will fill in a gap in our understanding of SNAP and
allow States, FNS, and other researchers to learn about patterns of
participation and other factors such as work experience and income
volatility.
The SNAP quality control, QC, system, which measures SNAP payment
accuracy, has recently been the subject of oversight by USDA's Office
of Inspector General. The Senate Agriculture Committee also held a
hearing to review problems with the quality control system. This led
FNS to conduct a subsequent investigation and revise its guidance and
processes. We acknowledge that FNS and States have made substantial
progress in addressing the problems these investigations exposed. The
conference agreement requires FNS to issue regulations to codify the
quality control improvements and other changes in order to ensure the
statistical validity of the measures the QC system produces. The
conferees are not expecting any major changes in how the QC system
measures payment error. We expect that the basic tenets of the quality
control measures will remain. For example, a payment error will be
determined based on the outcome of the eligibility decision, rather
than on the State's procedural compliance, and that the certification
and reporting rules under State and Federal policy will be taken into
account in assessing payment errors.
The QC system needs to balance the twin goals of payment accuracy and
program access. We urge FNS to not include changes to the QC system
that would make it harder for individuals to participate in SNAP if
they live in unstable conditions as a result of them moving more often,
do not have a permanent address, or if they are likely to be more
``error prone'' because they have variable earnings that are more
difficult for States to track.
The conferees are aware that the OIG and USDA both identified uneven
Federal application and enforcement of quality control rules, as well
as State practices, as an underlying cause of the problems identified
in the investigations and reviews. We expect that improving quality
control reviews will involve a more rigorous Federal rereview and more
consistent practices across FNS regions.
The conferees chose not to include a House provision that would
eliminate the quality control error tolerance threshold. Currently set
at $37, this is the threshold below which error amounts do not count
toward the State's error rate. The threshold encourages States to focus
their efforts on larger, costlier errors. Minor mistakes in calculating
benefit amounts are not a threat to SNAP integrity and are
understandable, given the volatility in the lives of many low-income
households. If States were encouraged to increase their efforts to
drive SNAP errors in every case to zero, some States experience shows
they likely would respond by requiring more paperwork, which would be
burdensome and inefficient.
Finally, the conference report eliminated SNAP bonus payments to
States out of concern that that they may have contributed to State
practices that introduced bias into the quality control process. The
conferees continue to think that customer service measures, such as
measures of timeliness and program access, are important indicators of
SNAP's success, and we expect FNS to continue to measure and publish
these data for all States and to emphasize their importance in
conducting program oversight. The same is true for enforcing clear
standards. We are concerned that FNS is not following its own guidance
with respect to how it will follow up with states whose timeliness has
fallen below established Federal standards. This is important for the
agency to address.
Another provision involving program integrity involves when States
may follow up with households to seek additional information based on a
data match. The provision identifies the circumstances under which such
follow up is allowed and when it is prohibited. The conferees intend
this provision to codify FNS's recent regulation of January 6, 2017, at
7 C.F.R. 273.12(c)(3). We do not intend for USDA to issue any new
regulation beyond simply the addition of the new National Accuracy
Clearinghouse to the list of matches that might require action.
Another provision in the program integrity area changes how SNAP
benefits are treated when households have not accessed them recently.
The provision allows States to move SNAP benefits ``offline'' after 3
months of inactivity instead of 6 months and requires benefits be
``expunged'' or completely taken away after 9 months instead of 12
months. Because inactivity in households' SNAP accounts is often the
result of a misunderstanding, the provision requires that households be
notified 30 days before benefits are scheduled to be expunged and offer
an opportunity for the household to request that any benefits that have
been moved offline be swiftly restored. On balance, my expectation is
that this provision will improve households' access to benefits because
households will be better informed.
In our negotiations on the SNAP provisions of the farm bill, the
conferees spent substantial time debating the SNAP employment and
training program and proposals to add requirements in SNAP that would
take food assistance away from households that fail to meet harsh work
requirements. I am proud that this bill does not include the House's
proposals to severely restrict waivers from the existing harsh 3-month
time limit and the House bill's new requirements that would have taken
food assistance away from families with children and older adults who
struggle to find work. This was no accident. The conferees rejected
these proposals. In fact, the Senate resoundingly rejected on a
bipartisan basis an amendment that included many of these harsh
changes. The administration should take note of this and follow
congressional intent and not attempt to advance an inconsistent agenda
through rulemaking that is not supported by the law we just passed.
Rather than harsh new requirements, the conference agreement focused
on helping families get back to work the right way. The conference
agreement will strengthen State flexibility to design employment and
training systems that meet local workforce needs and labor market
conditions. We added workforce partnership arrangements, which could
involve private employers, trade groups that represent such employers,
or nonprofit organizations to the options available to States and
individuals for meeting SNAP employment and training and work
requirements. We also focus additional funding provided in the bill for
employment and training on programs with a proven track record based on
the pilots from the 2014 farm bill and on populations that face
substantial barriers, such as individuals who were incarcerated in the
past, workers age 50 and older, and those at risk of multigenerational
poverty.
In order to help employment and training participants succeed in
their placements, we now expect States to include case management as a
component in all States' employment and training programs. We envision
that States will continue to have wide latitude in what counts as case
management, and we intend that case management be a resource to
employment and training participants, not an extra hoop for
participants to comply with to satisfy their employment and training
obligation. Not every participant will need case management, and not
every component of a State's employment and training program must offer
case management. We also revise the job search component under
employment and training to add a supervision requirement, but
anticipate that States will be creative in developing innovative models
for supervision that are not burdensome on participants, for example,
by using technology to include online job search, or other automated
and remote options. We recognize that States will need time to update
their employment and training plans and build capacity to roll out new
approaches, so we expect FNS will provide adequate time for States to
transition to compliance with the new requirements. I should note that,
while self-initiated job search may no longer be a standalone component
within employment and training, it is not disallowed as a part of
another component. For example, if a job training program offers 12
hours of job training and 8 hours of job search, this should
[[Page S7921]]
still be allowable under this change. The conference report also does
not preclude self-initiated job search that is not specifically managed
within the SNAP employment and training.
The Agriculture Committee has a long history of bipartisan oversight
of SNAP, and every farm bill includes provisions that strengthen SNAP
by taking advantage of new technologies and other advancements in other
areas of the human services field. This farm bill is no exception. For
example, we include provisions to adjust SNAP's electronic benefit
transfer, EBT, program to account for new technologies like mobile and
online payments and to add flexibility for farmers' markets. While we
recognize the need for SNAP to evolve to survive in the modern
marketplace, it is equally important that we continue to maintain
program integrity. The Secretary must maintain the ability to monitor
retailers and ensure they are not engaging in fraudulent activities.
Retailers without a physical storefront may require new approaches to
oversight, and FNS should continue to work with retailers and Congress
to ensure appropriate controls are in place.
EBT is a critical link in the SNAP program for delivering benefits to
eligible families and our retailers, and EBT contractors are important
partners. The Senate-passed farm bill included requirements on USDA and
GAO to conduct broad reviews of SNAP EBT, including transfer-related
fees, equipment issues, data security, and customer service, especially
the unfortunate increased frequency of systems outages. We also
required USDA to issue regulations and guidance on these issues based
on the findings from the studies. Although we were not able to include
these provisions in the final conference agreement, both USDA and GAO
have the authority to engage in these activities without specific
statutory direction, and I urge them to do so.
Child support collections is another area where we determined that
the proper course of action is for the Secretary to obtain more
information. The House included a sweeping provision to require States
to mandate cooperation with child support enforcement as a condition of
SNAP eligibility. While we strongly support custodial and noncustodial
parents financially supporting their children, we rejected the mandate
out of concern that taking away food assistance would do more harm than
good for children and that the mandate would be costly for States and
the Federal Government. Instead, we direct the Secretary to collect
evidence on the impact on families and children and the cost for States
and the Federal Government. We also want information on the experiences
in States that have adopted the mandate, those that rejected it, and on
some of the practical issues such as how States guarantee a robust
determination of good cause for noncompliance. It is key that the
Secretary in carrying out this study collect information on those who
would be dissuaded from participating in SNAP as a result of the
mandate. Research on those who do not receive SNAP as a result of a
policy change can be difficult to obtain, but because our concern about
the provision relates to the impact on children whose parents are
afraid to participate in SNAP because of a fear of domestic violence or
out of other concerns about their relationship with another parent--for
example, when grandparents care for grandchildren--the Secretary must
seek to paint a full picture of the impact such a change would have on
children. We also instruct the Secretary to examine what alternative
options are available in this area that would achieve similar goals but
without putting food assistance for children at risk.
In addition to these critical issues within SNAP, I also want to note
that we made some critical improvements to programs to support
beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, organic producers and
local food systems, including providing permanent mandatory baseline
funding. This important step will ensure these programs continue to
support the next generation of sustainable farmers. The conference
report also directs Secretary to have the Agriculture Marketing Service
and Rural Business Cooperative Service work together to implement the
Local Agriculture Market Program, using the agencies' respective
structures and expertise to deliver an effective program. One important
aspect of the Local Agriculture Market Program is food safety
assistance, an area where the primary expertise at USDA resides with-in
the Agriculture Marketing Service. I would ask USDA to ensure food
safety components of the Local Agriculture Market Program be
coordinated between the agencies, but be led by Agriculture Marketing
Service, who has the most expertise.
This farm bill was truly historic, both in its broad level of
bipartisan support and also in its steps toward supporting the great
diversity of American agriculture. I also believe it was noteworthy
that we were able to overcome strong partisan attacks on food
assistance to produce a bill in the bipartisan tradition this committee
maintains continues to protect the family safety net in a bipartisan
way. I hope the administration follows our lead and rejects harmful
attacks on food assistance for families needing short term support.
____________________